Tuesday, February 28, 2012

House Passes Bill That Will Make Protesting Illegal at Secret Service Covered Events

The House of Representatives approved a bill on Monday that outlaws protests in instances where some government officials are nearby, whether or not you even know it.

The US House of Representatives voted 388-to-3 in favor of H.R. 347 late Monday, a bill which is being dubbed the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011. In the bill, Congress officially makes it illegal to trespass on the grounds of the White House, which, on the surface, seems not just harmless and necessary, but somewhat shocking that such a rule isn’t already on the books. The wording in the bill, however, extends to allow the government to go after much more than tourists that transverse the wrought iron White House fence.

Under the act, the government is also given the power to bring charges against Americans engaged in political protest anywhere in the country.

Under current law, White House trespassers are prosecuted under a local ordinance, a Washington, DC legislation that can bring misdemeanor charges for anyone trying to get close to the president without authorization. Under H.R. 347, a federal law will formally be applied to such instances, but will also allow the government to bring charges to protesters, demonstrators and activists at political events and other outings across America.

The new legislation allows prosecutors to charge anyone who enters a building without permission or with the intent to disrupt a government function with a federal offense if Secret Service is on the scene, but the law stretches to include not just the president’s palatial Pennsylvania Avenue home. Under the law, any building or grounds where the president is visiting — even temporarily — is covered, as is any building or grounds “restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance."

It’s not just the president who would be spared from protesters, either.

Covered under the bill is any person protected by the Secret Service. Although such protection isn’t extended to just everybody, making it a federal offense to even accidently disrupt an event attended by a person with such status essentially crushes whatever currently remains of the right to assemble and peacefully protest.

In the text of the act, the law is allowed to be used against anyone who knowingly enters or remains in a restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so, but those grounds are considered any area where someone — rather it’s President Obama, Senator Santorum or Governor Romney — will be temporarily visiting, whether or not the public is even made aware. Entering such a facility is thus outlawed, as is disrupting the orderly conduct of “official functions,” engaging in disorderly conduct “within such proximity to” the event or acting violent to anyone, anywhere near the premises. Under that verbiage, that means a peaceful protest outside a candidate’s concession speech would be a federal offense...

While presidential inaugurations and meeting of foreign dignitaries are awarded the title, nearly three dozen events in all have been considered a National Special Security Event (NSSE) since the term was created under President Clinton. Among past events on the DHS-sanctioned NSSE list are Super Bowl XXXVI, the funerals of Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, most State of the Union addresses and the 2008 Democratic and Republican National Conventions....

When thousands of protesters are expected to descend on Chicago this spring for the 2012 G8 and NATO summits, they will also be approaching the grounds of a National Special Security Event. That means disruptive activity, to whichever court has to consider it, will be a federal offense under the act.
And don’t forget if you intend on fighting such charges, you might not be able to rely on evidence of your own. In the state of Illinois, videotaping the police, under current law, brings criminals charges. Don’t fret. It’s not like the country will really try to enforce it — right?

The bill passed the Senate on February 6 and only requires the signature of the President to become law.

Are you dumb? Why do you think we're protesting? It's unconstitutional dickhead.

"Congress shall make NO law...ABRIDGING...the RIGHT of the PEOPLE peaceably to ASSEMBLE, and to PETITION the Government for a redress of grievances." -First Amendment

Constitutional worship? You people that poke fun and disrespect the Constitution are who are destroying this country. Nearly every if not all of society's ills can be laid at the feet of people like you. Go educate yourself on the history of this country.

The United States is really sinking fast and bringing the Constitution down to the bottom of the sea. First the Patriot Act, then the NDAA, now this. Are people in America not aware of what's happening???

No, I wouldn't. If you're running for public office, you must expect to be confronted about your positions on the issues. It goes with the job, and shouldn't be labeled harrassment, nor should a candidate or elected representative be immune from it. That's the biggest problem with the trampling of the Constitution - they keep exempting themselves from the same trampling they inflict on the rest of the citizens.

I have little doubt they would love to enforce that at some point. Although Wikipedia says that "droit du seigneur" (the alleged legal right of a medieval lord to take the virginity of a maiden serf, AKA primae noctis) is historically debated, I am confident they would love to do that as well. They understand no limits.

There is at least One Republican that is different than the rest. Ron Paul voted against this bill, one of only 3 people. America needs to WAKE UP, and see that RON PAUL is the only one who protects the Constitution! A vote for Ron Paul is NOT a vote for expanding government!

Are you kidding me? Keith Ellison (not his real name) is the biggest of the big government guys, and he voted "Yea" on this bill. Ron Paul was indeed one of the 3 who voted "Nay".http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2011-149

These are two separate votes on the same bill. Look at the dates -- http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2011-149 is from Feb 2011, when Paul indeed voted Nay. However in the Feb 2012 vote (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll073.xml), Paul did not vote. Problem solved.

.....respecting an establishment of religion, or .....prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging.....the freedom..........of speech, or..........of the press; or.....the right of the people.........peaceably to assemble, and .........to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The proscription against certain types of legislation by the federal congress appears unqualified.

The "no titles of nobility" language elsewhere can be seen as prohibiting elevating the security interests of public officials above the 1st amendment's proscription against these types of legislation.

The legislation seems to abridge the freedoms emphasised in the excerpt above. The constitution says such legislation shall not be "made".

The Amish and Mormons have an answer to this in their religion. It is called, "Shun". Dictionary: Shun, Shunning, shunned. To avoid, to keep away from. When they do it to one of their own, it is very effective.

Most Congress people, Senators, Presidents, and State Legislators are "People" people, or flat out Narcissistic to a degree. They love themselves and feel something is wrong if not everybody loves them. Like actors and other celebrities, the thrive on notoriety. President Obama is the poster boy of Narcissism.

There was once a question going around. I think it was in the '60s or '70s. I don't here it much anymore, but it went like this: "What if "They" had a war, and nobody came?

What if "They" gave a speech, and nobody came, or listened. What if "They" entered a small business - say, a small town restaurant, where "They" hoped to, "Press the flesh" and have a taped "Town meeting" on the Campaign trail, or showed up at a Football game, or on a college campus for some honorary function, etc., and everybody there got up and walked out?, or, Nobody came?

Try it some time. Find a function, planned to be in your town where a dignitary of "The Government" or "one of the top 2 candidates" will show up, and put out the word (quietly) that nobody show up.

If nothing is made of that the first time, do it 3 times in a row. I guarantee!, it'll work. The dignitary, or candidate will have a psychological reaction. It will be reported in the newspaper and on TV. Much more will be made of it than is ever made of a demonstration held 3 blocks away!

Is this the act that finally wakes people up? Have a hard time believing that, this sort of stuff has been happening for a while now, I expect about the same reaction: small uproar, attempted court action, grassroots attempts, then ultimate failure of the movement because of a lack of leadership and message. It sucks, but that's probably the way it will go, hopefully I'm wrong because this is just disgraceful, so much for ye' old parchment I guess.

Isn't it interesting how the people have struck such overwhelming, irrational fear into the hearts of government officials? Are these the actions of leaders that are confident and courageous - that have a plan to move us forward and deal with the issues? Or the actions of frightened children that know they have been bad - caught with their hands in the cookie jar - and fear the reckoning that they know is just now a matter of time? Cowards all, save for three...

I have no doubt that Dr. Paul could walk down any street in America without fear of his fellow citizens.

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." Thomas Jefferson 1743-1826

It is definitely too much to ask whenever those precautions completely eliminate the First Amendment. And the proposed law doesn't just protect the President. It protects anyone who has Secret Service detail. That includes past presidents, members of Congress, Supreme Court justices, cabinet members, the Vice President, and, as the article indicates, presidential candidates like Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney.

The issue isn't about protecting the president. Yes I think it should be against the law to trespass upon White House grounds. The issue is this law taking away a right that is guaranteed to us under the constitution.

The link under "Eric Morris" is incorrect, as it shows results of a procedural vote to "suspend the rules and concur on Senate amendment." The final vote tally is correctly shown in the govtrack.com link shown further down the page. Ron Paul voted "Nay". Keith "call me Mohammed" Ellison voted "Yea."

The security of the nation is in great decline because of the string of disastrous interventions in other nations' business and because of 40 years of neo-liberal economic policies, i.e. "free" market, "free" trade neither of which has anything to do with freedom.

This is the coup de grace for the 1st amendment. Since the vietnam/civil rights protests, tptb have been enacting local ordinances that essentially outlaw public assembly. Ex. permits requirements, trespassing laws, free speech zones, etc.

The moron above who thinks this is reasonable is displaying such horrible ignorance that I can't even believe it.

There seems to some confusion about the voting. Check out the history of the congressional action here. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HR00347:@@@R

There was a vote on Feb 28th of last year, Paul voted against the bill(roll call vote 149). It was voted on again this year, I believe it is the bill after a Senate/House compromise, (roll call vote 73) Paul, no doubt was on the campaign trail

I went to the Thomas' Register and read the bill because, among other things, I wanted to see who the 3 patriots were who voted against it. However, in the process, I actually read it, and it's a surprisingly short bill. It seems to say that the area must be cordoned off or otherwise restricted, which implies that it must be obvious. It also seems to say that the person is knowingly trespassing. So, by my read, I'm not sure this really does violence (in and of itself) to our right to peaceably assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. There are plenty of other laws that already accomplish this. Now, I will be the first to point out the thousand other ways they are attempting to control us and keep us at bay, as nice little loyal subjects, but I'm not seeing how this bill really wipes out the First Amendment. What am I not seeing here in the text of the bill? This article may be right-on, so don't fire arrows at me for asking the question - I just want to understand before I get all worked up. There's plenty else to get worked up about (DHS, TSA, DEA, the Defense Authorization Bill, etc.) if this turns out not to be another nail in liberty's coffin.

I completely agree. The author of this article is grossly misinterpreting this act. In fact, I would be willing to be that he (or she) did not even read it at all and is regurgitating some bullshit he read from another unethical journalist. The sad thing is that people are more willing to take the word of some random journalist instead of actually reading the act. Additionally, this act is not a new law; it has been around since 1971. All they did was simplify the wording (removing "willingly" from the phrase "willingly and knowingly" and clarifying what constitutes a "restricted" area). If you think this act will take away your first amendment rights, then I guess you haven't had them since 1971. I guess it didn't matter until now?

it's hard to determine what this bill actually says just from the article. But I wonder if people are misinterpreting it a bit. It doesn't appear to ban protest or assembly, rather instead expanding the definition of trespassing. I could be wrong, but as I read it, the bill puts off limits a facility in which the secret service is operating. It is quite reasonable to allow a secure perimeter around a protected person. To argue otherwise means you oppose the concept of secret service protection in general. This isn't about the first amendment.

While attending a State of the Union "event", would not our own congressional representatives be subject to this law? For instance, if some representative were to exclaim "You Lie!" - would we then see the secret service escort this courageous individual to the stockade????

We have lost control of our country. Our government is corrupt and blatantly disregarding the law of the land (the Constitution). Everyone who voted yes for this legislation MUST BE VOTED OUT OF OFFICE AT THE NEXT OPPORTUNITY. If we don't send a clear message at the polls to these criminals (who are criminals either by ignorance or intent, but criminals either way), then we deserve whatever we get from them in the form of liberty-tampling laws.

They changed the location of the G-8 from Chicago to Maryland! Those scumbags will start WWIII and hide in thier bunkers with eachother..... I do not think they thought that out too well.... our "leaders" are parisites!

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin. Come on guys, none of theses ideas we have are new. If you doubt that, look up quotes from any of our founding fathers. Our central government is only supposed to do 2 things, 1) insure our rights and liberties are protected and 2) protect us from outside invasion. Somewhere along the line, they got it backwards and stayed the course. Now we have an elected king instead of a president. Jefferson said that freedom is purchased with the blood of the tyrannous and patriots and that our government should never see 20 years without revolution because "when people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears its people, there is liberty. "

THIS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. WHICH VOIDS ANY THING THAT IT SAYS. THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUION IS THE ULTRAMENT TOP LAW ON THIS AND UNLESS THERE IS A CONSTITUIONAL CONVENTION, ANY LAWS WHICH ARE BROUGHT FORTH AND PASSED BY 2/3THS OF THE SENATE, THE HOUSE, AND THEN MUST BE RATIFIED BY THE VOTERS OF OVER HALF OF THE STATES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WILL A LAW BE CHANGSD. UNTIL THEN, ALL THEY ARE DOING MAKING POLICIES, NOT LAWS. WHICH ARE JUST THAT. SOMEONE'S POLICY, WHICH WE ARE NOT SUBJECT TOO. IT HAS TO A LAW! SO, IF THEY BRING THIS BULLSHIT ON YOU, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT UNDER THE CONSTITUTION TO TELL THEM TO KISS YOUR ASS. YOU MIGHT HAVE TO FIGHT AND SHED YOUR BLOOD, BUT YOU ARE RIGHT. THAT IS THE WAY YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE LIVE FROM NOW ON. I KNOW, I JUST WENT THRU WITH THE SECRET SERVICE. YOU ARE NEXT!SWAMPFOX

AT THE SECOND SESSIONBegun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the third day of January, two thousand and twelve

An Act

To correct and simplify the drafting of section 1752 (relating to restricted buildings or grounds) of title 18, United States Code.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011'.SEC. 2. RESTRICTED BUILDING OR GROUNDS.Section 1752 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:-`Sec. 1752. Restricted building or grounds

`(a) Whoever--`(1) knowingly enters or remains in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so;`(2) knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any restricted building or grounds when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions;`(3) knowingly, and with the intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, obstructs or impedes ingress or egress to or from any restricted building or grounds; or`(4) knowingly engages in any act of physical violence against any person or property in any restricted building or grounds;or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).`(b) The punishment for a violation of subsection (a) is--`(1) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, if--`(A) the person, during and in relation to the offense, uses or carries a deadly or dangerous weapon or firearm; or`(B) the offense results in significant bodily injury as defined by section 2118(e)(3); and`(2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in any other case.`(c) In this section--`(1) the term `restricted buildings or grounds' means any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area--`(A) of the White House or its grounds, or the Vice President's official residence or its grounds;`(B) of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting; or`(C) of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance; and`(2) the term `other person protected by the Secret Service' means any person whom the United States Secret Service is authorized to protect under section 3056 of this title or by Presidential memorandum, when such person has not declined such protection.'.Speaker of the House of Representatives.